On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, David O'Brien wrote: DO>On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:03:05PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: DO>> >No, we should be using the __restrict as coded. But I wonder why DO>> >we can't just use "restrict"... DO>> DO>> Because that would really mess up any user program that used DO>> 'restrict' as a variable or function name. I think the DO>> current approach is the best. DO> DO>Such code isn't portable to C99, which is still a goal of ours. I like DO>RU's suggestion, because it is straight C[99] code and not an DO>abstraction. I'll do a 'make world' test and see if we'd have trouble DO>with RU's form.
What about third party code that reads cdefs.h and is pre-c99? It's perfectly ok to use restrict as a name there. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
